When Taxes Spell Good News
A strong economy boosts revenues
Taxes, as the saying goes, may be as unavoidable as death, but do they have to be so high?
That's the question raised by some supply-side economists who are exercised by what they regard as an alarming statistic: In recent years, federal individual income and payroll taxes have been claiming an ever larger share of personal income--rising from 17.1% in 1992 to 20.4% in the third quarter of '98, the highest level in the postwar period.
As some critics see it, this growing tax bite is squeezing consumers. With more income being siphoned off by taxes, they say, struggling households have had to dip into savings simply to maintain consumption patterns. And the fact that the monthly savings rate recently turned negative for the first time in 60 years underscores the problem.
Does it? Economist Paul L. Kasriel of Northern Trust Co., who has long favored lower marginal tax rates, is dubious. For one thing, he regards the picture of tax-beleaguered households struggling just to maintain consumption as highly exaggerated. In actuality, he notes, people have been spending with exuberance--so much so that consumption outlays have averaged 81.4% of personal income since the start of 1993--the highest level in four decades.
As for the rising tax take, Kasriel claims that the main cause has been increases in inflation-adjusted income, which have been pushing tax filers into higher marginal brackets. Indeed, real personal income last autumn was running nearly 4% over its year-earlier level, compared with a mere 1% gain that was registered in early 1993.
Similarly, more income has become subject to taxation as more households have moved off welfare rolls and onto payrolls in response to welfare reform and a tight labor market. Kasriel calculates that welfare payments--which are not subject to taxation--have fallen from about 0.45% of personal income in early 1992, to 0.24% at last count.
Finally, Kasriel points to a development others have cited in explaining the falling savings rate and rising tax bite: the huge increase in household net worth generated by the stock market boom. With the value of their past savings and investments rising so rapidly, consumers have felt free to curtail current savings so they can enjoy the fruits of their past thrift now. At the same time, the tax take from capital gains on stock holdings has surged higher, even though such gains themselves aren't counted as personal income.
In sum, rather than a threat, today's high tax receipts and low savings rate appear to reflect highly favorable economic trends: rising real incomes, declining welfare rolls, and increasing household wealth and capital gains.
"At the start of the Reagan Presidency," says Kasriel, "supply-siders promised us higher tax revenues if tax rates were cut. With marginal rates down sharply since then, the irony is that the current revenue surge could be the legacy of Reagan's supply-side revolution."BY GENE KORETZReturn to top
Return to top
Parental Leave: Healthier Kids
It has lowered infant mortality
While parental-leave advocates have stressed the benefits for children, there have been relatively few studies demonstrating these benefits. In a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, however, economist Christopher Ruhm presents evidence that such policies do have a positive effect on one aspect of children's well-being: infant and child mortality.
Ruhm analyzes changes in parental-leave policies in nine Western European countries from 1969 to 1994. Unlike the U.S., whose 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act gives unpaid parental-leave rights to only those working for larger employers, all of the nations studied have provided paid, job-protected time off to women since at least 1983. Thus, such tax-financed entitlements--currently averaging 32 weeks--are used by most eligible workers (including men in some countries).
While Ruhm's analysis indicates that much of the sharp decline in infant and child mortality rates since 1969 was unrelated to parental-leave policies, he does find that longer leaves significantly reduced child deaths. Specifically, more leave substantially lowered post-neonatal and child mortality rates (deaths occurring between 28 days and 12 months of age and between the first and fifth birthdays). By contrast, longer leave policies had little effect on low birth weights or on deaths of younger infants.
Since falling mortality rates are a sensitive measure of health gains, says Ruhm, these results suggest that parental leave may be a cost-effective way to improve overall children's health.BY GENE KORETZReturn to top